Anti-avoidance
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to tackling tax avoidance to ensure the Exchequer is protected and fairness is maintained for the taxpayer.
HMRC has recently become aware of an avoidance scheme that seeks to generate loss relief from a property business that holds an agricultural estate. It is intended that this loss can then be set-off by users of the scheme against their other income. This scheme relies on arrangements that have a tax avoidance purpose. The Government do not accept that these arrangements have the effect that is sought, but to remove any doubt prompt action is being taken to protect the Exchequer.
I am today announcing that legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2012 to prevent property business loss relief being given where allowable agricultural expenses arise from arrangements entered into in which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is to obtain a tax reduction. The legislation will have effect from today and will protect significant amounts of revenue.
We have acted quickly to prevent the use of this particular scheme and we will not hesitate to close down other schemes representing a significant risk to the Exchequer as we become aware of them.
Since the scheme that HMRC has become aware of is the third avoidance scheme that has targeted trading and property reliefs, there is a risk that further schemes may seek to exploit one or other of these reliefs.
I am therefore also announcing that the Government will introduce further legislation in the Finance Bill 2012 to prevent post-cessation property relief being given where a qualifying payment or qualifying event arises from arrangements entered into in which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is to obtain a tax reduction. This legislation will also have effect from today.
Draft legislation and further details of this measure are being published on HMRC’s website today.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on tourism of differential rates of VAT in the hospitality industries in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The number of overseas visitors to Northern Ireland grew by an estimated 11% in the first half of 2011, compared with just 7% over the first 10 months in the Republic of Ireland. Building on that performance, marketing campaigns by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Tourism Ireland are expected to draw 150,000 more visitors to Northern Ireland, create over 600 new jobs, and provide an additional £24 million in revenue for the economy in 2012.
Naomi Long
The Minister is right to draw attention to the success that Northern Ireland has enjoyed as a result of the efforts of the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, given that tourism is so price-sensitive, will the Government think again about the potential offered by a VAT reduction? We are currently the only part of the European Union that does not support our tourism industry in that way. Will the Minister reconsider, so that we can try to maximise the potential and grow even more jobs in the sector?
Mr Gauke
As I have said, Northern Ireland tourism is doing well at present. Were we to pursue a relief along the lines adopted in the Republic of Ireland, it would involve a cost of some £8 billion, £9 billion or perhaps even £10 billion, which would have to be made up for by higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to reduce tax avoidance and evasion.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are determined to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and ensure that the tax system operates fairly for all. By closing down two aggressive avoidance schemes on 27 February, we have demonstrated that we are prepared to take bold action to counter avoidance. The Government’s commitment has been underlined by their reinvestment of £917 million in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will bring in additional revenues of £7 billion a year by 2014-15.
Mr Amess
The United Kingdom has the longest tax code in the world. It has 11,500 pages, and is 10 times longer than “War and Peace”. Does my hon. Friend agree that any simplifying measures would be welcome, as they would reduce tax avoidance and evasion and would prevent further ridiculous trials such as that of Harry Redknapp? I always thought that he was innocent, because he is such a good football manager,
Mr Gauke
So he is an ex-Harry Redknapp fan.
Complexity in the tax code can provide opportunities for avoidance, but, equally, much of the complexity that exists is a consequence of attempts to crack down on avoidance. The Government have set up the Office of Tax Simplification, and we are determined to do what we can to simplify the code and address avoidance and evasion.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Stamp duty land tax avoidance schemes cost the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds a year, but my questions on the subject have been met with complete complacency by Ministers. I was told:
“HM Revenue and Customs… is aware of a number of marketed… schemes. HMRC considers that none of the schemes… is effective in reducing… liability”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 708W.]
Now we hear that the Chancellor is going to crack down on such schemes. Which is it?
Mr Gauke
There are many marketed schemes that HMRC is convinced do not work, and that will be established in the courts. I suggest that those who are sometimes persuaded by claims that a particular scheme will work should treat them with caution. However, the Government are determined to crack down on stamp duty land tax avoidance. We took steps in the last Budget, we took steps in the autumn statement strengthening the disclosure regime, and there may well be more to come.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
When the banks begin to make profits again, they will offset the losses that they made when they got us into a total mess, and will avoid paying tax. Whenever companies are paying tax on their profits, the banks will be avoiding tax on theirs. Will the Government look at that?
Mr Gauke
There are times when taxpayers engage in aggressive avoidance and we put a stop to it, as we did last week. However, the offsetting of losses is not novel—it is a long-standing element of the tax system—and, although of course we keep all such matters under review, the legitimate use of losses does not necessarily count as aggressive avoidance.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Given the Government’s attempts to cut the deficit, it would make sense to clamp down on tax evasion, so why are they cutting 10,000 staff at HMRC?
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on the level of economic growth in 2011.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
T6. With new businesses setting up and others expanding in my constituency, I very much welcome plans to promote equity investment in new business ventures through the seed enterprise investment scheme. What else is being done to support new business ventures across my constituency and the rest of our nation?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the seed enterprise investment scheme, which will provide 50% income tax relief on investments in new start-up businesses. There is also the £50 million business angel co-investment fund, supported through the regional growth fund, the business coaching for growth arrangements and a number of measures that HMRC is taking to help start-up businesses.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Minister’s answer on the national insurance holiday for small businesses was simply not good enough, so may I press him again on why he will not expand eligibility for the national insurance holiday to all small businesses with fewer than 10 employees that take on extra workers, as set out in Labour’s five-point plan for jobs?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T7. What success are we having in stamping out VAT fraud, specifically missing trader fraud, which affects us more than it does other EU countries and costs us almost £10 billion?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Airports create jobs, yet next month’s increase in air passenger duty will apply equally to unused airports in regions with high unemployment and busy airports in the south-east. Will the Chancellor consider introducing a differential level of air passenger duty so that airports in regions with high unemployment can gain some benefit from it?
Pensioner Taxation and Employee Share Schemes
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government launched the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) in July 2010 to provide independent advice on simplifying the tax system.
The OTS has today published an interim report on its review into pensioner taxation and the final report on the review of approved (tax-advantaged) employee share schemes, both commissioned by the Government on 5 July 2011.
The Government asked the OTS to carry out a two-stage review of pensioner taxation. In this first stage of the review the OTS has identified and examined at a high level those parts of the tax system which cause the most complexity for pensioners. The OTS will analyse these areas in more depth before formulating recommendations in the second stage of their review.
The Government also asked the OTS to carry out a two-stage review of employee share schemes. The first stage of the review looked at the four tax-advantaged schemes. The OTS was asked to evaluate the four schemes, identifying where they create complexities and disproportionate administrative burdens for scheme users, and examining areas where the schemes could be simplified. The OTS will look at the simplification of unapproved schemes in the second stage of its review.
Electronic copies of both reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
The Government will respond to the OTS reports in the Budget, on 21 March 2012.
Living Standards
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
After all the sound and fury that we have just heard, perhaps I may provide a little context for the benefit of the Opposition. When this Government came to power, we had the highest borrowing in our peacetime history. We were borrowing one in every four pounds that we were spending. It was clear then, and it has since become clearer, that countries that lack fiscal credibility pay the price in higher market interest rates, at a cost to mortgage holders and businesses throughout the country.
In order to reduce a structural deficit—that is, one that will not go away with growth—it is necessary to cut spending or raise taxes, or a combination of the two. Cutting spending and raising taxes will, unfortunately, have an impact on people’s living standards. We do not want that to happen—we did not go into politics to do that—but the impact on living standards is the inevitable consequence of the dire state of the public finances left by Labour and the recognition by the coalition parties that we could no longer continue to borrow in the same reckless way.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that if some of the families that we are talking about give up their employment and claim other benefits—including, in some cases, help with their mortgages, to which they would then become entitled—the savings that he is trying to achieve would simply not be made?
Mr Gauke
I shall speak in greater detail about the reforms to the working tax credit in a moment, but there is a question that we all have to answer. As the hon. Lady knows, there is a threshold for claiming the credit. For lone parents, it is 16 hours a week. We think it entirely reasonable that the joint target for couples should be not 16 hours a week but 24; we believe that that incentive will be helpful. The principle of a threshold has been in the tax credit system since it was put in place.
Mr Gauke
Let me just make a little more progress.
We heard the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) set out the challenges and pressures on living standards, but it takes some cheek for Labour Members to complain about the consequences of their own irresponsibility in power. Their position today in this motion relating to living standards is the equivalent of that of a man who sets his house on fire, then complains, after the fire brigade has extinguished the fire, that it has damaged his carpets. We accept that difficult decisions have to be taken, and we have taken them, but the British public know that we have had take them now because Labour failed to take them when it was in power.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister is peddling the persistent Tory untruth that this economic situation existed only in Britain. Will he now accept that there was a worldwide banking crisis in 2008, and that the action that was taken to reflate the economy had contributed to the size of the deficit by 2010?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This debate is about living standards, and central to good living standards in our country are job creation and economic growth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the private sector is central to creating jobs, to make up for Labour’s failure to rebalance the economy and provide job creation?
Helen Jones
Given that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development says that one in five firms are cutting hours, rather than increasing them or creating new jobs, how are people who work 16 hours a week going to find the extra hours to qualify for working tax credit? Where are those hours going to come from?
Mr Gauke
The figures for the last quarter for which figures are available show that there were more than 1.1 million jobs—[Interruption.] That is not a net number; it is the gross number of people moving into employment. We are not going to do anything for employment in this country if we undermine credibility, or if we see our interest rates driven up because we lack credibility because our policies do not hang together. That is what Labour is advocating, but it would be bad news for private and public sector employees.
Hugh Bayley
Does the Minister not recall that, at the time the coalition came to power, interest rates were extremely low and had been for a long time? Our policy at the time of the banking crisis did not therefore create high interest rates. Will he also remind us what the national debt was at the time of the election? I think that it was between £700 billion and £800 billion, whereas it is now more than £1 trillion for the first time in our history, and that is because of this Government’s poor economic growth.
Mr Gauke
There is so much wrong with that that I do not know where to start. Perhaps I will begin by pointing out that, at the last general election, our interest rates were at more or less the same level as those of Italy and Spain, yet there is now an enormous difference between us. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr Gauke
I am going to make a little progress.
We know, given the constraints that we face in the public finances, alongside high commodity prices and international uncertainty, that these are tough times for many families. That is why we have taken substantial steps to protect living standards, and to ensure that we support our poorest and most vulnerable families. Even as we cut the deficit, fairness has been at the very core of our spending plans. We will not let our poorest and most vulnerable families bear the consequences of the previous Government’s failures. That is why we have secured the largest ever cash rise in the basic state pension, and why we have uprated working-age benefits by 5.2% to protect the real incomes of the poorest.
Mr Gauke
I want to make a bit more progress.
That is also why we increased the child tax credit by £135, in line with inflation, which means that, by this April, it will have increased by £390 since May 2010. It is telling that the Opposition motion makes no mention of this Government’s plans to increase the personal allowance, no doubt because their last contribution to the debate on income tax for the low paid was the 10p debacle.
Glenda Jackson
Will the Minister tell us how his Government are helping the poorest in our society? Hundreds of families in my constituency are going to lose working family tax credit and will not be able to increase their hours. They are facing the possibility of losing their homes because of the cap on housing benefit, and of losing services because of the cuts to local authorities. The people who are most dependent on such services are inevitably the poorest in our society, yet his Government seem quite deliberately to be attacking them, perhaps because they believe that there are no votes in that part of the country.
Mr Gauke
We believe there are a lot of votes in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
I was going through the things we have done to help the poor, but let me continue. What we have done with the personal allowance is a big step—helping working people, ensuring that work pays and lifting living standards for those on low incomes. That is why this Government have made increasing the personal allowance one of our key priorities in supporting low and middle-income families across the UK. In April 2012, we will make a £630 increase in the personal allowance, taking it £8,105, which, taken with the £1,000 increase in April 2011, will benefit 25 million taxpayers, taking 1.1 million low-income individuals out of income tax altogether. We note that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury expressed her opposition to that policy just a few minutes ago.
Anas Sarwar
Will the Minister explain how living standards are increasing for families in Glasgow when 2,000 couples and 4,000 children will lose up to £4,000 in working tax credits at the same time as VAT is going up, inflation is high and the cost of living is going up? How is that improving living standards for poor families in Glasgow?
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
When the previous Government introduced so much regulation into the child care market, did not the number of child minders fall from 100,000 to 50,000 placements while the cost of child care doubled? Was that not a shameful increase in the cost of living for some of the poorest families in our country?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are to find practical ways of improving living standards, the work that she is undertaking is exactly what we need to be doing. We need to ensure that we have an effective environment in which parents can work and child care costs are manageable.
Ian Austin
Will the Minister point me to the bit of the Conservative manifesto that promised hard-working families that they would lose their tax credits and be better off out of work, and to the bit that promised other families that if they had a pay rise that took them into the 40p band they would lose their child benefit and be much worse off, too? Will not people who voted Conservative at the election feel utterly betrayed by the introduction of these anti-work and anti-aspiration policies?
Mr Gauke
The people who voted Conservative at the election, and indeed others, recognise that this Government are prepared to take difficult decisions to get the public finances on track to provide the long-term credibility that our public finances need and to ensure that our economy can grow strongly once again. By sticking its head in the sand and opposing every step taken to get the deficit under control, the Labour party does itself no favours.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Minister talks about putting the public finances in a sound state, yet are not the Government’s policies singularly failing because the Government are having to borrow an additional £158 billion? Surely that should tell the Minister that he is getting it wrong, that he needs to think again and put people back in employment to give them the opportunity to pay tax and contribute to society rather than wasting taxpayers’ money on keeping people idle on unemployment benefit.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Opposition really believed in looking after low-paid people, they would have voted for the welfare cap and not voted against it? My constituents do not understand why they did that.
Mr Gauke
Let me make a little more progress.
We want to target support where it is needed most. Tackling the deficit fairly requires us to ensure that tax credits are targeted at our poorest and most vulnerable families. We simply could not continue on the path that the previous Government took. From 2003-04 to 2010-11, spending on tax credits increased from £18 billion to an estimated £30 billion, with nine out of 10 families with children eligible for tax credits. In total, the previous Government had spent more than £150 billion on tax credits since 2003—a staggering sum, poorly targeted and an unsustainable level of spending. It is absolutely right and fair to reform the system to support those who need it most.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
At Work and Pensions questions earlier, the Secretary of State made it clear that because of the support of Jobcentre Plus and other agencies, he did not expect anybody to opt out of work as a result of the changes. Does the Minister stand by that? If so, let me give him this challenge. If any family comes into my constituency office to tell me that it is no longer worth them going to work because of these changes, will he personally respond to their financial queries, which I will put in front of him? I suspect that other Members will be doing exactly the same to explain to their constituents why this Government have now made it no longer worth going to work. This seems to be a complete aberration and against his own policy—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions need to be brief.
Mr Gauke
Given that we ask lone parents to work 16 hours a week before they are entitled to working tax credits, I would say that it is not right to have the same threshold for a couple. Asking and incentivising them to work 24 hours a week is perfectly reasonable. Under the universal credit that we are going to introduce shortly, every hour extra worked will be worth while, as there will not be the same threshold. Essentially, we are working within the system that we inherited from the previous Government.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the extra hours, but with more than 2 million people unemployed, where are those extra hours going to come from?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Members know that they should not stand and point at the Minister; they should ask him to give way. If he declines to give way, it means that they have to sit down and try again later.
Mr Gauke
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Increasing the working hour requirements for a couple is entirely fair. It is absolutely right that a couple with children should put in more hours than a lone parent before receiving working tax credits. This also creates a clear work incentive signal to potential second earners who could benefit from working tax credits if they moved into work or increased their hours.
Toby Perkins
The Minister referred to universal credit. Is not one of the most foolish parts of this policy the fact that it will be out of date within 18 months or so in any case? This will potentially mean a lot of people deciding to get out of work, but it will be superseded by the policy on universal credit. Why not just wait until universal credit comes in?
Mr Gauke
I come back to the point I made previously. With the difficult financial situation we inherited, we needed to take steps, and one of them was to increase the threshold for a couple from 16 to 24 hours. That seems perfectly reasonable and fair in the context of a 16-hour requirement for lone parents.
Mr Gauke
I want to make a bit of progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.
We are also right to reform child benefit to target the families who need it most. I fully understand that child benefit provides a vital boost in parental income for millions of families throughout the country, but it represents a substantial cost to the Exchequer. It makes up about 7% of total social security and tax credit spending each year, including child benefit payments of over £2 billion per year to higher-rate taxpayers. When we face such tight constraints on the public purse, it is right for us to refocus resources where we need them most.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentioned the administrative cost of child benefit to the Exchequer. Can he tell us what is the estimated cost of all the extra form-filling that the change will require?
Mr Gauke
I was actually talking about the overall cost. We will give details of the cost of administering child benefit when we announce the details of the policy, which, as the hon. Lady will know, we will do shortly. However, as the Chancellor has said:
“We simply cannot ask those earning just £15,000 or £30,000 to go on paying the child benefit of those earning £50,000 or £100,000.”
It is simply not fair for working parents on low incomes to subsidise millionaires. If members of the Labour party believe in that, they can add it to their election literature along with their opposition to the benefit cap. By making these changes, we can continue to direct child benefit to where it is needed most, supporting millions of families and millions of children from birth until they leave full-time education at the age of 18 or even 19.
Ed Balls
Can the Minister explain to Members on both sides of the House why he thinks it fair for a family with a joint income of £84,000 to keep all their child benefit, while a one-earner family will lose all their child benefit if the husband or wife stays at home and their income is just £43,000?
Mr Gauke
Let me explain the challenge that we face. Basing child benefit on household income means a full means-testing regime with all the complexities that that involves: all the form-filling, and all the administration problems. I do not know whether that is what the shadow Chancellor wants, or whether he supports the position taken by the shadow Chief Secretary, who would not touch child benefit at all; but if we do not pursue the policy that we have announced, we will incur an additional £2.5 billion of borrowing every year. That is what the Labour party is committing itself to.
Ed Balls
The Minister is right: the policy is very complicated. It is a pity that the Government did not work that out before they announced it 18 months ago. The Secretary of State for Justice wants to keep it, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to drop it, the Prime Minister also wants to drop it, and the Chancellor is confused. My advice to the Minister is this: sit down, finish the speech and let us see what happens in the Budget, because this is doing his career no good at all.
Mr Gauke
Treasury Ministers have taken advice from the right hon. Gentleman in the past, and it did not end well. In that context, I will continue my speech.
At the same time as refocusing child benefit, we are investing £7.2 billion in the fairness premium, including £2.5 billion in the pupil premium, to support the poorest in their early years and at every stage of their education. There are substantial reforms and tough decisions to make, but we have not shirked our responsibility to do so. We will not burden future generations with unsustainable debts that would mean higher taxes and diminished public services. We cannot keep building debt to fund spending on today’s generation at the expense of tomorrow’s.
Mr Gauke
I am going to make a little more progress.
We cannot ask our poorest and our most vulnerable to carry the burden; it is right and fair for those with the broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burdens. Those who say that we are not asking the wealthy to pay their fair share are the very same people who are jumping up to oppose reform of child benefit, which will do exactly that.
Under the previous system, about nine out of 10 families with children were eligible to receive tax credits. Under our reforms, the proportion will fall to six out of 10. As is shown by our distributional analysis of the impact of the autumn statement and previous fiscal events, the top 20% of households will make the greatest contribution to reducing the deficit as a percentage of their incomes and benefits in kind from public services.
Helen Goodman
Strictly speaking, what the Minister has said is accurate, but he knows as well as we do that the only reason for the positive distributional effect is the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) before the last general election. Surely the Minister can acknowledge that the measures taken by the coalition Government are massively regressive.
Rachel Reeves
Can the Minister tell us whether the measures introduced by his party are progressive or regressive?
Mr Gauke
All the measures that will be put in place in 2012-13 are being implemented by this Government. That is the point. It is impossible to disaggregate those measures. They are all going to be put in place, and we are responsible for all of them. If we had wanted to reverse some of them, we could have done so, but we did not.
Of course, none of what we are doing ignores the fact that this will be a tough year for households across the board. We know that that is the case, and it is our reason for going even further to support families and businesses throughout the country.
Mr Gauke
I want to make some progress.
We are limiting the increase to Transport for London and regulated rail fares, funding South West Water to enable it to cut bills by £50 per year for households that currently face the highest water bills in the country, setting aside an extra £675 million for local authorities in England to freeze or reduce council tax in 2012-13, and providing real help for households that are feeling the squeeze. We are deferring the fuel duty increase that was due to take effect on 1 January to August this year, while also cancelling the further increase in August. As a result, tax on petrol will be a full 10p lower than it would have been, and families will have saved £144 on the cost of filling up the average family car by the end of next year.
Mr Gauke
No, I am going to make a bit more progress. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I think that that was enough for all of us.
It is because of our decisions that we have secured record gilt yields, feeding through to record low and stable interest rates that make a real difference to families paying their mortgages and businesses refinancing loans throughout the country. If we are going to discuss a squeeze on living standards, let us discuss what an increase in market interest rates would mean for families throughout the United Kingdom. It would force taxpayers to find an extra £21 billion in debt interest payments, increase the cost of business loans by £7 billion, and add £10 billion to mortgage bills every year, an extra £1,000 for the average family—and that is just a 1% rise. Let me remind the House that when the Government came to office, our rates were tracking those of the likes of Spain and Italy, and that they are now close to those of Germany. It is because of the tough decisions that we have made to cut the deficit that the UK has broken ranks. In the last year alone, its rates have fallen by about 1.5%, whereas those of Italy and Spain have risen by almost 3%.
I know the shadow Chancellor considers that low interest rates are a sign of trouble, and that he would prefer higher interest rates, a bigger squeeze on families, and an even bigger fall in living standards, but the simple truth is that the Opposition have no credible response to the economic challenges that the country faces.
Sheila Gilmore
I am wondering whether the Minister has been out of the country for the past few days, and therefore has not noticed that several banks are increasing their mortgage rates.
Mr Gauke
If we had pursued the policy advocated by the Opposition, our market rates and gilt yields would be going up and we would be facing a very significant problem. We have record low interest rates at present. That does not necessarily mean mortgage rates will remain at their current levels for ever across the board, but the fact is that the tough steps we have taken have ensured that interest rates are much lower than they would otherwise be, which is to the advantage of both mortgage holders and businesses looking for finance.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
We have debated this question before, and it was clear that quantitative easing is what has led to the reduction in interest rates. The recent £50 billion of quantitative easing has, in effect, been an attack on pension funds; it has wiped out almost a quarter of private pension funds compared with the situation before the last general election. Will the Minister confirm that further credit easing will also affect private pension funds?
Mr Gauke
Credit easing will benefit businesses. I should also point out that the current low interest-rate trend was in place before the additional quantitative easing undertaken by the Bank of England.
The simple truth is that the Opposition have no credible response to the economic challenges we face. It took the coalition Government five days to come together in the national interest to forge a joint commitment and approach to tackle the deficit, yet 18 months later the Opposition remain confused and conflicted. Every now and again a member of the shadow Cabinet—even the shadow Chief Secretary—crops up to say they will be fiscally credible but, in practice, they oppose welfare reform, for instance, and say it affects the poorest, even when a household receives more than £26,000 a year. They also oppose reforming universal benefits, even though that protects the richest, and they oppose anything that affects the squeezed middle. Clearly, their economic plan involves more spending, more borrowing and more debt.
However many Opposition days they have, and however many economic policy relaunches they make, it is clear that Labour was irresponsible in government and is irrelevant in opposition. We are fixing the failures of the past and are repairing our economy. This Government are committed to supporting families across the country through difficult economic times.
It is, of course, a tough challenge to secure our economic stability and lay the foundations for sustainable growth, but we are determined to restore the UK’s prosperity, and we will put fairness at the heart of our recovery by protecting living standards for our poorest and most vulnerable families, by lifting millions out of tax, by taking steps to reduce the cost of living and by refocusing welfare on those who need it most. Yes, that means that those on the highest incomes will bear the heaviest burden as we pull together to tackle the deficit, but it is absolutely right that those who can contribute the most do so.
A fair and sustainable recovery demands leadership, and that is exactly what this Government are providing. It is this coalition Government alone who are determined to face up to today’s economic challenges, and to build tomorrow’s fair, prosperous and sustainable economy.
Northern Ireland Economy
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Owen Smith
We need to make work pay—there is no doubt about that—and we need to make work attractive. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that while the unemployment rate may be relatively better than that of the rest of the UK, one of the blacker marks of the Northern Ireland economy is that the economic inactivity rate is worse—27% versus 23%. Such things are neither simple nor straightforward, and they will prove to be difficult. However, we need to ensure that we apply changes fairly and proportionately.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
May I be clear about the two points the hon. Gentleman has raised on public sector employment and welfare cuts? Is he saying that if his party were in power, there would be no reduction in public sector jobs in Northern Ireland and no welfare cuts affecting Northern Ireland?
Owen Smith
No, I did not say that for a minute. We have not at any point said that there would not be any cuts. We have said that there would be cuts, although they would be on a different trajectory. I suggest that we would not have seen the same volume of cuts over the same period, because Labour Members do not believe, despite what the Secretary of State said in his remarks to Queen’s university Belfast, that we can grow the private sector and liberate its surpluses by cutting the public sector. That is poor economics and it will not work. We also believe that such an approach has been demonstrated as not working by the facts on the ground. That is why we are borrowing an extra £158 billion in the current spending period: to pay for the failure to get the economy moving. That is the truth.
I hate to tell the Minister, but another area in which the Government are failing in Northern Ireland is in respect of enterprise and getting enterprise moving. When one turns the page in the “Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy” document from the section about fairness and enterprise, one comes to what the Government think are the principal measures required to strengthen the private sector and promote fairness in Northern Ireland. First among them is a scheme to help new businesses in countries and regions outside London, the east and the south. It will exempt new businesses from £5,000 of employer national insurance contribution payments. The document says that that will help up to 15,000 businesses in Northern Ireland. I hate to tell the Minister but that scheme has so far helped 461 businesses in Northern Ireland, according to the Government’s own figures. That is just 3% of the target that was originally intended. I put it to him that that is a woeful performance.
Clearly, the Minister needs to consider the targeting of that scheme and whether he needs to revise it. I suggest that the Minister reads the bit elsewhere in the document that talks about the possibility of changing the parameters of that scheme and revising its targeting to expand it to all companies with fewer than 10 employees, as the Labour party suggests, as opposed to concentrating simply on start-ups. If he did that, those businesses might be able to get some of the billions of pounds that are currently languishing in the Treasury not being spent on incentivising enterprise.
Of course, the Minister could consider other tax possibilities. The document is quite insightful in showing us where the Treasury is contemplating different measures for Northern Ireland. One area is in respect of the annual investment allowances. It is very interesting that the document suggests that those annual investment allowances, which are designed to help capital intensive companies, manufacturing and so on, have been cut from £100,000 a year to £25,000 a year across the UK. Those are the sorts of companies one would have thought should be incentivised if one were serious about rebalancing the economy away from financial services towards a productive economy. Apparently, in Northern Ireland, that allowance could go back up to £100,000. That is a very interesting idea and I urge the Minister to think about that, not only in Northern Ireland, but across the UK.
Of course, the corporation tax measure is the big bazooka that we are hearing about the Government rolling out. The document talks about driving down corporation tax in Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the 12.5% in the south, as Members here today have also mentioned. Labour places great faith in the fact that parties in Northern Ireland have expressed some support for that measure, as did some 75% of respondents to the document. During the debate, it has been instructive to hear hon. Members highlight the risks—
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Northern Ireland economy and I am very grateful for the contributions of all those who have participated in this important debate.
As hon. Members are aware, across the UK we face difficult economic conditions and a tough challenge to restore the UK to prosperity. Critical to achieving that ambition is tackling the record deficit that we inherited—not that one would have noticed that point from the speech made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith)—and rebalancing our economy away from debt-fuelled consumption and public spending towards sustainable private sector growth.
The Northern Ireland economy faces similar challenges, but recent history also means that it faces a different set of circumstances compared with the rest of the UK. That point has been made by a number of speakers, including the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). Although the years of peace following the Good Friday agreement have seen prosperity on the rise in Northern Ireland, it still faces a number of difficulties. The Government are concerned that employment in Northern Ireland is overly reliant on the public sector. Private sector employment in Northern Ireland lags considerably behind the rest of the UK. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that whereas 61% of people aged 16 to 64 are employed in the private sector in England, only 45% are in the private sector in Northern Ireland.
However, I am optimistic about the future of Northern Ireland. As we have heard, Northern Ireland already attracts a large share of UK foreign direct investment, and that is generating new employment. The Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have been tireless in promoting more opportunities for private sector growth and employment as part of our commitment to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. I doubt if there have been many, if any, Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland who have shown the focus and energy that the current Secretary of State has on that point. Indeed, he made an important speech this week on that very subject.
Mr Gauke
I am sure the Secretary of State will enjoy reading this debate in Hansard. I do not think that a good test of a Secretary of State is whether they read the debate in Hansard or whether they sit mute during the course of a three-hour debate.
The Government have established a joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, consisting of Ministers of the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to consider issues raised by the consultation. We are committed to working with the Northern Ireland Executive to promote a more sustainable, private-sector led recovery in Northern Ireland. Of course, the issue of corporation tax is a key consideration when it comes to supporting private sector growth.
Analysis in the “Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy” consultation document shows that reducing the corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland has the potential to increase investment there. Furthermore, devolving any tax rate varying power must satisfy the Azores criteria, as a number of hon. Members pointed out. The Azores criteria are in the European Court of Justice judgment on Commission v. Portugal, which set out the conditions that need to be met to be compliant with EU law and, as noted in the Government’s consultation paper, it is expected that Northern Ireland would meet the Azores criteria of institutional, procedural and fiscal autonomy.
However, although strong support has been shown in favour of corporation tax devolution, it has not been unanimous. The process presents its own challenges in the form of administrative burdens on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and businesses to ensure compliance. Designing a devolved regime is likely to be difficult and it will take time and involve extensive consultation with business. Bespoke rules are likely to be needed to cover a range of situations and forms of income, as well as a series of transitional rules. Furthermore, there are significant challenges in estimating the impact of corporation tax devolution on revenue, a point raised by a number of hon. Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee.
One issue with estimating total corporation tax revenue in Northern Ireland is that the only geographical data that companies currently provide is the address of the country where they are registered, which may have no relationship to where their activity is undertaken. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury raised that point both this afternoon and in the Select Committee’s report, questioning why HMRC and the Treasury do not have the figures. An accurate system would depend on companies operating in Northern Ireland supplying apportioned data on profits, losses, expenses and allowances. For some, that would be simple; for others it could be costly and administratively burdensome. At present, there is no need—indeed, no point—for them to do so. That is why the numbers are estimates, rather than based precisely on what profits can be attributed to Northern Ireland.
Further costs associated with a reduction in corporation tax rates for Northern Ireland include the behavioural effects that could arise from a difference in corporation tax rates between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK; for instance, through profit shifting, where companies artificially manipulate transactions so that their taxable profits arise in low tax jurisdictions, or tax motivated incorporations, meaning that companies adopt incorporated status to reduce their tax liability. The impact of those behaviours has the potential to be significant. “Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy”, states that indirect tax effects could be considered when calculating the adjustment to the block grant, as long as doing so complied with the Azores criteria and the UK fiscal framework; the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) raised that specific point. As the report recognises, designing an appropriate mechanism presents a number of significant challenges, and considerable work is needed to consider the issues involved.
The Government agree that further work is required for forecasting the potential costs of implementing a reduction in the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland and the type of systems that could be introduced to allow it to be monitored. Possible mechanisms will be looked at by the working group that was set up by the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. However, no decision has been taken on whether to allow such effects to be taken into account in the event that corporation tax is devolved and the rate reduced. The working group had a meeting in December and there is another meeting next Wednesday, 7 March. I look forward to seeing the Finance Minister once again at that meeting, and I hope we can make progress on working together to assess the costs in this area.
Several responses to the consultation pointed out that devolution of corporation tax responsibilities could pose risks to relatively deprived regions elsewhere in the UK. The Government will need to consider that before taking a decision on whether to devolve corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. For instance, the issue of how a lower Northern Ireland rate might be ring-fenced in a manner that balances protection from avoidance or manipulation against burdens on companies will be considered further as part of the work plan. Here, as in the other devolved Administrations, the Government are seeking to strike a balance. We want to ensure the empowerment of all devolved institutions. At the same time, however, we must maintain the success of the shared economy on which all countries of the UK depend. We need to ensure that any proposals support the competitiveness of the UK by maintaining incentives for businesses to trade, invest and be headquartered in the UK, while not imposing unreasonable burdens on them.
Air passenger duty was raised by a number of hon. Members. Last summer, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report into air passenger duty highlighted the unique geographical position of Northern Ireland, which of course shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland. It went on to note the serious effects of competition from substantially lower rates of duty in the Republic of Ireland, which threatened the viability of direct services between Belfast and the United States in particular. As the Committee observed, direct long-haul flights make an important contribution to the Northern Ireland economy, supporting trade and tourism.
The Government agree that direct long-haul services are vital to the future prosperity of Northern Ireland. In September, we took the decision to announce a cut in APD for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland. That change took effect from 1 November 2011. We have also reflected on the views expressed during the APD consultation, which ran until December last year. The Government of Northern Ireland are very clear in their desire for aspects of APD to be devolved, to provide a lasting solution to the unique challenges they face. In a direct response to that request, and in the unique circumstances that apply to Northern Ireland, on 21 February 2012, the Government announced that the power to set APD rates for direct long-haul flights departing from Northern Ireland will be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, under the 2012 Finance Bill.
Additional points were made about scrapping APD on domestic flights. We have to bear in mind that we have a very big deficit. We have to be careful about reducing taxes. If we reduced or scrapped APD in such circumstances, it is difficult to see how it could apply for Northern Ireland only, and one has to take into account the overall cost. The Government response on APD is very clear. Devolution will allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to protect the crucial air link to the US, and offer a real chance for new long-haul services, which will support both business and tourism in Northern Ireland.
On other tax measures, in addition to corporation tax and APD, the Government will continue to consider the feasibility, legal constraints, potential timetable and impacts of other tax options. They include capital allowances, R and D tax credits and an employers’ national insurance holiday, all of which received support from some respondents to the consultation. Several suggestions were made about the administration of individual measures, which the Treasury and HMRC will consider alongside other submissions on those policy areas. The joint ministerial working group programme will also consider those alternative tax measures alongside its main focus on corporation tax.
Specific measures were referred to in the debate. On the aggregates levy, there are ongoing discussions with the Commission. We expect a European Court of Justice judgment later this month, but I assure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to finding a solution.
The carbon price floor is a UK issue, but I know that there are particular concerns in Northern Ireland. The Economic Secretary is working on those matters, including in the context of Northern Ireland. We heard a point about VAT—about targeted reductions for tourism, home renovations and so on. Both of those, if applied nationally—or, indeed, a general cut—would be very expensive. As has to be explained from time to time to the official Opposition, it would result in more borrowing, which the Government do not wish to see.
The Government have introduced a number of UK-wide measures that have benefited Northern Ireland. They include cuts in the headline rates of corporation tax, increases in the employers national insurance contribution thresholds, and increased R and D tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as reforming the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trusts scheme to help provide access to finance. On the point about access to finance, we will say more in the Budget in a few weeks’ time, but I hear the comments made by a number of hon. Members.
I appreciate that we are running out of time. I have not been able to address every point that has been raised during the debate, but I stress that it is vital that the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Executive continue to work together to restore the entire UK economy to prosperity.
Mr Gauke
We are working with ministerial colleagues, and the whole Government are seeing what we can do. The right hon. Gentleman has made his points clear; they are on the record and we hear them.
The Government are working hard to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. A ministerial working group is meeting next week to discuss many of the issues raised here today. We look forward to working together over the coming months to find the best way to meet hon. Members’ concerns.
Scottish Football (Tax Liabilities)
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak. It is a very great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. It has not been heavily attended, but it has been of good quality. It has also been wide ranging; we have heard a little about the history of Scottish football and we have had a bit of a geographical tour of a number of Scottish football clubs. We have heard about a number of issues relating to football in Scotland and we have also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) about issues relating to football in England.
There is no doubt that the issue brought into focus by the administration of Glasgow Rangers is a significant one. That administration is clearly crucial to football in Scotland and, as we have heard, football in Scotland is crucial to Scotland much more broadly, including to the various communities in which football clubs exist.
The importance of football to a local community is self-evident, first because it provides jobs and stimulus to that community. We have heard about the impact when Rangers play against St Johnstone in Perth and we all know how football can contribute to the feel-good factor if a team is successful. Any football supporter can testify to that, as well as testifying—to be fair—to the feel-bad factor when a side does badly. I speak as an Ipswich Town supporter who has experience of both the feel-good and the feel-bad factors.
Secondly, the football industry in the UK contributes significant sums to the Exchequer by way of PAYE, national insurance and VAT. The debate about football and taxation obviously tends to focus on sums that have not been paid, but it is worth pointing out that last year the contribution to the Exchequer from football amounted to well over £1 billion, and clearly that money is vital to the provision of public services.
Of course, football is always in the spotlight. Recently, there seem to have been as many column inches about football clubs in the business pages as on the back pages, and I am acutely aware of the wider impact that the administration of Glasgow Rangers football club will have on other football clubs and businesses. However, the difficulties of one business cannot mask the significant support that the Government and HMRC have provided to help and support businesses across the country, including football clubs, to grow and to meet their tax obligations, even when they encounter temporary difficulties.
Of course, the debate has demonstrated the particular and intense passion that is involved with the business of football, but I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife will appreciate that, due to confidentiality obligations, I cannot share specific information about Rangers with him. I know that he will be disappointed with the constraints that exist for all of us, but it is important that HMRC protects customer confidentiality. However, I can comment on the importance that the Government place on supporting businesses, whatever their size or fame, and on the position of football debt generally, and particularly at this time, on the importance of ensuring that where public revenues are due, they are paid on time and in full.
Thomas Docherty
While I appreciate the fact that the Minister cannot talk about the specific tax structure of Rangers, can he confirm whether UK Ministers, of whatever Department, were aware that Rangers had not paid since last May?
Mr Gauke
There are a couple of assumptions in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I was going to deal with those points later, but I will do so now. First, there is an assumption in his question that, as has been reported, Rangers has not paid PAYE since May. There is taxpayer confidentiality and there are limits to what can be said to Ministers, as well as what can be said publicly. All I can say is that HMRC has assured me that in cases of this kind, it gives debts very close attention at all times. I would therefore be very surprised indeed if there had been no ongoing discussions or action by HMRC to secure payment over that time period.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about ministerial involvement—in his speech he raised the point about the involvement of Scottish Ministers as well—Ministers were kept informed of significant developments such as the timing of court proceedings, but HMRC did not seek or take advice from Ministers on how to handle matters that were entirely within HMRC’s responsibility. Equally, with regard to the Scottish Government, there were discussions. HMRC was entitled to inform the Scottish Minister, because there were issues relating to devolved powers, and it was right that the Scottish First Minister was informed. At his request, HMRC explained its general policy for customers who were having difficulties paying their tax debt, and it gave him an idea of the likely time scale of its initiating administration proceedings if tax debts were not paid. Although HMRC listened to representations that he wished to make, it neither sought nor took advice from him or other Scottish Ministers. I hope that provides some clarity.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister; he has been quite candid. He will probably be aware that the First Minister does not normally wait to be asked to give advice, so can he tell us what advice the First Minister offered without being asked?
Mr Gauke
I do not know what advice the Scottish First Minister provided, if indeed he provided any. I know that there were discussions informing him of the issues, as was appropriate; for example, whether there were going to be any public order issues that could be related to progress on this particular matter. There was nothing in any way improper about a discussion with the First Minister in broad terms. Similarly, I assume that the discussions with Ministers of the UK Government were not about specific tax information, but in the broadest of terms.
Owen Smith
I appreciate what the Minister has said about the limited nature of the advice that he has been given by HMRC, given the nature of his relationship with HMRC. Can he tell us whether he in turn has impressed on HMRC that it needs to think of the wider financial nexus around Rangers, and of course the cultural significance of the club? It is a business, but it is not just a business.
Mr Gauke
HMRC is well aware of the significance of Rangers football club and its importance in Scotland. I have no doubt that HMRC is aware of that sensitivity. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Rangers should receive special treatment, but HMRC is aware of the importance of Rangers to Glasgow and to Scotland, and indeed to the UK more widely. I have no doubt about that.
I return to the issue of the support that businesses receive from HMRC, both generally and in respect of football. Of course, facing tough conditions, many businesses can stumble upon difficult times. That is why HMRC invests so much time and energy to support those businesses, whether they are start-ups or established large businesses, when they encounter difficulties.
I will focus on the support that is provided for the many thousands of businesses, large and small, through the time to pay arrangements, which allow them to spread the payment of their liabilities beyond the due date. That facility took on a more prominent role in November 2008 when the Business Payment Support Service was launched. Its purpose is to provide speedy access to quick decisions from HMRC for businesses facing short-term financial difficulties and who wish to discuss time to pay arrangements.
Many hundreds of thousands of businesses have accessed the service since its launch. The time to pay arrangements have helped hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers and businesses suffering short-term financial difficulties. This has been particularly helpful during the past four years, given the economic challenges that the UK has faced. HMRC will continue to offer that support service where it is appropriate to do so, although I make it clear that the facility is not there to prop up an insolvent business whose existence is dependent on not paying the taxes for which it is liable. That is why HMRC will probe deeper when a business comes back repeatedly to seek time to pay. Such repeat requests can indicate a more deep-rooted financial difficulty, which can mean a time to pay arrangement is unlikely to be the appropriate outcome.
At a time when the public finances are as they are, it is crucial that businesses and individuals pay the tax that is due. That is a point that every speaker has made this afternoon. Businesses and individuals who do not pay their taxes are restricting growth and getting an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules. The Government are committed to levelling the playing field for the compliant majority. Even as HMRC puts in place services to support businesses, small and large, to realise that ambition, it also expects all businesses, be they football clubs or not, to be run effectively from a tax management point of view.
As reported in the media, it is true that in recent years some football clubs have had poor compliance records for the payment of tax liabilities. I am not talking about the payment of tax on profits; I am referring to the PAYE and national insurance that the clubs have deducted from their players and other employees and the VAT that they have charged their customers. Too often some football clubs have used those moneys, which were never theirs, to fund their business, because they have overstretched themselves in other areas. Many hon. Members will doubtless have views on why that situation has arisen, and why clubs so often apparently spend more than they can afford. I think all hon. Members will agree that it would not be right for taxpayers to fund such shortfalls.
However, things have begun to change. One practical way was when the previous chairman of the English football league, Lord Mawhinney, approached HMRC to explore how they—the football league authorities and HMRC—could work together to reduce the levels of tax debts in the football league.
From those initial discussions emerged a working arrangement that remains in place today. All English football league clubs consented to HMRC sharing information with the football league on their payment compliance in respect of PAYE and national insurance. Not only does any club that withholds those taxes face decisive action by HMRC, it will also encounter sanctions from the football league.
However, the issue is not always about sticks. The carrot is that eventually, all clubs will compete on an even basis. No club should benefit over another simply because it retains taxpayers’ money to fund its operation. That is an absurd proposition, with which I know hon. Members will disagree.
The decisive action taken by HMRC and collaboration with the football league authority has paid dividends. Similar arrangements are now in place with the Irish Football Association and the football conference, which is the tier immediately below the football league.
In addition, some months ago HMRC met the Scottish premier league and the Scottish football league authorities to explore whether similar arrangements could be put in place for the top four divisions of football in Scotland. Further discussions are scheduled soon on that proposal. HMRC will meet the Scottish leagues next week to monitor the payment of taxes, which addresses one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.
Thomas Docherty
That was hugely informative and I am sure that it will be welcomed. If only we had heard it before now.
I have two specific questions. Will the Minister confirm that HMRC will contact all 11 other clubs to see what assistance they require as a result of the situation with Rangers? Also, can I tempt him to say a little about the potential introduction of a bond, which I know the Treasury has previously considered, to protect HMRC, so that if a club finds itself in administration, HMRC will have a guarantee that it will get some of its money back?
Mr Gauke
I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s second point first, which he is absolutely right to raise. From April 2012, HMRC will be able to seek securities where PAYE is at risk. That mirrors existing powers for VAT, which are already in place. If a taxpayer does not pay the security, they will commit a criminal offence. There are, of course, safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused by HMRC—it is not to be used widely—but where there is concern about repeated failure, that is an additional tool available to HMRC. That, in itself, will have a deterrent effect, which I hope will be helpful in such circumstances.
Pete Wishart
The Minister has mentioned some of the sticks available to HMRC to secure its liabilities, but what about the carrots? What about incentivising the clubs that meet HMRC requirements on time? I mentioned the example of my football club, St Johnstone, which has never gone into the red. Does HMRC want clubs to behave and be able to balance their books on that basis?
Mr Gauke
There would be a problem with HMRC rewarding clubs for paying their taxes; after all, it should be taken as a given that businesses pay their taxes. I return to my point on the work that is being done with the football league in England, with Lord Mawhinney, where football gets to grip with the issue, and works in conjunction with HMRC to ensure that clubs would face difficulties within the leagues if they fail to comply with their obligations. I would look at it that way.
The first point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife in his intervention was about whether HMRC will proactively contact the 11 other clubs in the Scottish premier league. Rangers going into administration is a huge event, not just for Rangers, but for all the other clubs in the Scottish premier league and some other clubs as well. HMRC is conscious of that and will—I am assured—listen sympathetically to any approach where that event causes serious short-term financial difficulties. The onus is on other clubs to get in contact with HMRC if they have a difficulty. The debt lines are open seven days a week, and there is no reason to delay discussions with HMRC, which I know will be happy to engage with clubs if they have particular issues. It is for the clubs to contact HMRC, rather than for HMRC to initiate communications. I hope that I have adequately addressed the issues about HMRC’s involvement, within the constraints that I and HMRC have in relation to taxpayer confidentiality, and about what communications there have been between Ministers of the UK and Scottish Governments.
Regarding HMRC’s capability in terms of the local issues, I am assured and confident that it is deploying the right skills and the right amount of urgency to the investigation of avoidance schemes. I am also confident that HMRC has the right skills to understand fully local factors. The hon. Member for Pontypridd raised a point about reductions of local staff in HMRC, which he described as having increased and accelerated under this Government. We have debated that point once or twice in recent days, including in television studios. In 2005, the number of HMRC staff, following the merger, was around 96,000. When this Government came into office, it was 66,000. By the end of the spending review, it is likely to be around 56,000. It is difficult to argue that there has been an acceleration in job reduction under this Government, and I will happily debate how and why we have been making changes in employment on another occasion. We are strengthening the capability for tackling evasion.
Owen Smith
I want to confirm that the Minister is saying that there will be 10,000 further jobs going under this Government over the spending period, as well as the 4,000 job losses announced in January.
Mr Gauke
The working assumption is as I have said, and as is in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is redeployment within that, so that there are additional staff dealing with tax evasion. There is capability to reduce the number of staff working in processing, where the use of new technology can substantially reduce the need for manual work.
I cannot comment on the case of Rangers specifically, but I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that HMRC is working with the administrators, alongside other creditors, to reach the best solution for the public purse and the club. We have heard how Rangers going out of business would be a disaster for Scottish football. The purpose of administration is to save the club and to ensure that creditors get as much as possible.
Damian Collins
On a point of principle, does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong, when a football club goes into administration, for HMRC and other creditors to get paid only after all football debts have been settled?
Mr Gauke
As we have heard in the debate, that is a matter more for the English arrangement. There is currently a court case on the issue. I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s view. There seems to be unfairness, and as I said, there is litigation on the matter.
The debate has been valuable, and I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for securing it and raising the issues. There are constraints on what I can say, both publicly and privately, although I will always be happy to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman. However, the constraints of taxpayer confidentially apply to me as much as anyone else, so I am not given all the information. The debate has been useful, and I thank the House for allowing us to hold it.
Office of Tax Simplification (Small Business Tax Review)
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government launched the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) in July 2010 to provide independent advice on simplifying the tax system.
The OTS has been working on three reviews and today has published its final recommendations on its small business tax review. The OTS will be presenting its interim reports on pensioner taxation and employee share schemes next week.
On 9 May 2011, the Government asked the OTS to carry out a review of tax administration for small businesses as part of the next stage of the OTS’s small business tax review. The OTS was asked to identify areas of the tax system that cause the most day-to-day complexity for small businesses, recommend priority areas for simplification and consider the impact of these recommendations on different business sectors.
The Government will respond to the OTS recommendations at the Budget, on 21 March 2012. Copies of the final report on small business have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Tax Measures
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are fully committed to tackling tax avoidance and will take necessary steps to protect the Exchequer and maintain fairness in the tax system.
The Government are therefore acting today to tackle two aggressive tax avoidance schemes that have been disclosed by a bank to HM Revenue and Customs. By acting immediately, the Government will ensure the payment of over half a billion pounds in tax, protect further billions of pounds of tax from being lost and maintain fairness in the tax system.
Debt buybacks
The first scheme seeks to exploit corporation tax rules that apply to releases of debt. Normally a debtor company is taxed on the profit that arises when a liability is released for less than the amount borrowed, but special rules apply to connected companies. In such cases, a tax charge arises where a company connected to the debtor company buys the debt from the original creditor, or where debt is held between companies that become connected. These rules were amended in Finance Act 2010 to block schemes under which banks bought back their issued debt that was trading at a discount in the market. When closing these previous attempts by companies to profit from buying back their own debt without being taxed, the Government at the time made it clear in two written ministerial statements that they expected such profits to be subject to corporation tax.
Despite these clear statements, the bank has now entered into a scheme using contrived arrangements that once again seeks to ensure that the profit on a buyback of such debt is not subject to corporation tax and therefore that a substantial amount of tax, of around £300 million, is avoided.
The Government will amend these rules in Finance Bill 2012, effective from today, so that the legislation in question cannot be circumvented in future. It will also make retrospective amendments to the legislation in relation to debt acquisitions on or after 1 December 2011 to ensure the bank, and any other company that has engaged in a similar scheme in the same period, is taxed as it should be on this transaction. This is not action that the Government are taking lightly. But the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area, means that the Government believe that this is a circumstance where action to change the legislation with full retrospective effect is justified to ensure that the system is fair for all and that those who seek to benefit from this aggressive avoidance do not get an unfair advantage.
The bank has adopted the code of practice which contains a commitment not to engage in tax avoidance. The Government are clear that this not a transaction that a bank that has adopted the code should be undertaking.
The protocol on unscheduled announcements of changes in tax law published by the Government at Budget 2011 states that
“changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect from a date earlier than the date of announcement will be wholly exceptional”.
The Government view the avoidance outlined here and the circumstances as being a “wholly exceptional” case as envisaged by the protocol.
The draft legislation, explanatory note and technical note published today will form part of Finance Bill 2012 and will be available on the HMRC website.
Authorised Investment Funds
The second avoidance scheme seeks to exploit provisions of the authorised investment fund (AIF) regulations to generate the repayment of tax (whether directly or through set off against other liabilities) that has never been paid.
Legislation to block this scheme, which is effective from today’s date, has been made by regulations and will be available at legislation.gov.uk.
The Government have acted on a number of occasions in the past to block avoidance schemes exploiting both these areas of the law. The previous action and this Government’s action in the present case makes it clear that the Government consider that certain contrived arrangements—these are arrangements involving financial products designed to create tax credits that can be repaid or offset against a bank’s other income where the tax in question has not been paid, or to avoid being taxed on profits on buyback of the bank’s own debt—are wholly unacceptable, against the intentions of Parliament and the spirit of the law.
Ministers will consider closing any future avoidance schemes involving such arrangements with full retrospective effect to ensure that the system is fair for all and that those that seek to benefit from this aggressive tax avoidance do not get an unfair advantage.
Child Benefit
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Thank you, Mr Dobbin. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing the debate.
Government policy towards higher rate taxpayers and welfare go to the very heart of the challenge to tackle the tough economic circumstances that we face today. It is right and fair that we support hard-working families through these difficult times, and it is vital to ensure that all parts of society contribute to tackling the economic legacy that the Government have inherited.
When we came to government, we had been through the deepest recession since the war. We inherited an economy crippled by the biggest financial crisis in almost 100 years and the largest budget deficit in our modern history. Tackling that deficit is the vital precondition of sustainable growth. Only by tackling the deficit can we provide the certainty, stability and low interest rates that are critical to our recovery and renewing our prosperity across the country. Cutting the deficit is a vital precondition of growth. It has meant that we have had to make some very difficult choices to tackle the profligacy of the previous Government and target spending where it is most effective.
The Government believe that the welfare system must remain fair and affordable while protecting the most vulnerable, and that work must pay. To achieve that, we have had to make tough decisions such as raising the state pension age to 67 between April 2026 and April 2028, not going ahead with the planned £110 above inflation increase to the child element of the child tax credit, and not uprating the couple and lone parent elements of the working tax credit in 2012-13. Those are tough decisions to make, but we have sought to make sure that they are fair across income distribution. That is why the Government have, for the first time, undertaken and published a distributional analysis of the impacts of the autumn statement 2011 and previous fiscal events.
After combining the impact of tax, tax credit and benefit and public service spending changes introduced at the autumn statement 2011 and previous fiscal events, the analysis demonstrates that the top 20% of households will make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit as a percentage of their income and benefits in kind from public services. It is fair that higher rate taxpayers, who are better off, make a greater contribution to those savings. We are committed to the same approach as we reform child benefits.
Let me start by saying that we fully understand how important child benefit is to millions of families across the country. For many families, it provides a vital income boost to parent income, recognising the extra costs that they face compared with non-parents. Currently, child benefit is paid to around 7.5 million people, around 95% of whom are women, in respect of 13 million children and young people. Child benefit is paid at a rate of £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child. It is a substantial income boost to families, but it also comes at a substantial cost to the Exchequer. Child benefit already makes up around 7% of total social security and tax credits spending, and each year those spending levels rise.
Furthermore, we already pay more than £2 billion pounds a year in child benefit to higher rate taxpayers. At a time when we face constrained resources, we have to focus the resources that we have where they are needed the most.
Mr Chope
If that is so, why was that not said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the June 2010 Budget? Why did he say that he was going to freeze child benefit? Why did he not say what my hon. Friend is now saying? It seems that the Government—perhaps because of the minority party in the coalition—have now shifted their ground and are reneging on a pre-election promise not to interfere with child benefit.
Mr Gauke
As I said earlier, we were conscious that we had to take difficult decisions in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review in October 2010. We had to come up with spending decisions that would enable the Government to have plans that met fiscal targets. In the process of preparing for the spending review, tough decisions had to be made. When faced with the various options, the Chancellor decided that it was necessary to look again at child benefit and to ensure that that spending was targeted as best as possible.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Given the need to target child benefit as well as possible, can the Minister tell us how much child benefit is being paid for children resident outside the United Kingdom—for instance, in Poland and Lithuania? Would it not be appropriate to tackle that issue before dealing with the 40% taxpayer?
Mr Gauke
I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s concern. I may or may not be able to furnish him with the numbers that he has asked for. None the less, we have looked at that issue on several occasions. He will not be surprised to learn that we are constrained by European regulations relating to social security payments, which means that we are not able to address his concern in the way that he would like. European economic area nationals can claim child benefit and tax credits as long as they meet the relevant conditions. That is the constraint, I am afraid. There is not the easy choice that he seeks.
Mr Gauke
I am conscious that I have three minutes left and I have barely begun to deal with the various points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who secured this debate.
We recognise that most higher rate taxpayers are not super-rich. But, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said,
“a system that taxes working people at high rates only to give it back in child benefit is very difficult to justify at a time like this.”
He went on to say:
“We simply cannot ask those earning just £15,000 or £30,000 to go on paying the child benefit of those earning £50,000 or £100,000.”
The debts of the previous Government have to be addressed. Consequently, we have had to make difficult choices. By removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that we will save £2.5 billion a year. The savings mean we can continue to direct child benefit support to where it is needed most, supporting millions of families, and millions of children from birth until the time when they leave full-time education at the age of 18 or even 19.
Julian Sturdy
I want to touch on the transferable tax allowance, which has already been mentioned. I have written to the Treasury about it, and it is a way of bringing fairness back into the system. Will the Minister respond to that?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful, because I want to respond directly on that point. The Government, as stated in the coalition agreement, want to recognise marriage in the tax system. We remain committed to that and we will introduce proposals at an appropriate time, as is consistent with the coalition agreement. We remain committed to what is in the coalition agreement.
Mr Gauke
No, I mean within this Parliament, which I assume does not mean what my hon. Friend suggests.
I appreciate that there are a number of concerns about how this policy will be implemented and how it will impact on hard-working families. We have been clear that the reform needs to be as simple as possible. That is why we have sought to withdraw child benefit from households with the higher rate taxpayer and not pursue a complex means-testing regime that would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to contact 7.8 million households in receipt of child benefit.
From a customer perspective, this delivery option does not place a burden on all child benefit claimants and it limits the impact on households containing a higher rate taxpayer. The Chancellor and I will be working closely with our officials to scrutinise the available options as to how we will implement this policy and find a sensible way forward. Plans for implementation will be set out in the next few months.
Carers and Online Banking
David Gauke Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I should like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for securing a debate on this issue and for setting out so clearly the circumstances that carers face and the problems that might exist with the banking system. I am also grateful to him for setting out the difficulties that Mr and Mrs Dransfield have faced and telling us of their determination to address them. I sympathise with the difficult circumstances that can be faced by many carers, who make an increasingly important and valuable contribution to our society by supporting those who may be less able, for various reasons, to live an independent life.
The Government are committed to improving access to financial services, and in particular to bank accounts. It has been amply demonstrated that having a bank account is an essential aspect of modern life for any individual. My hon. Friend set out those circumstances clearly in the context of his constituents. It is clear that many individuals might need the assistance of a carer to help them manage their money, including people with a disability as well as the elderly.
I hope that it will be helpful if I briefly set out the regulations that apply in this area. Banks’ and building societies’ treatment of their customers is governed by the Financial Services Authority in its banking conduct of business sourcebook. The sourcebook includes a general requirement for firms to provide a prompt, efficient and fair service to all their customers. That includes older people, the disabled, and those who lack capacity to manage their account on their own. In addition, like all service providers, banks and building societies are bound, under the Equalities Act 2010—which my hon. Friend mentioned—to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people in the way they deliver their services. This may include allowing for a carer or deputy to act for the disabled person.
It is of course right that banks and building societies have put in place measures to protect their customers and themselves from fraud. They clearly need to satisfy themselves of their customers’ identity, both for commercial reasons and to meet their obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. Before a bank or building society can let someone manage the account of another person, it must have proof of the name and address of the account holder and of the person who will have legal responsibility for managing the account. It must also see evidence of that person’s authority to control the account holder’s money. When a carer has been given formal authority to manage another person’s finances through a power of attorney or court order, or by acting as a deputy, this can be proven through official documentation. However, when a person does not lack capacity to take decisions about their affairs but requires assistance to access their account, the situation can be more difficult. I accept that the case described by my hon. Friend falls into the former category.
It is worth noting that most banks offer their customers a range of channels through which to access their bank accounts, including by telephone or in a branch. It might well be that these channels are better suited to allowing access to a bank account via a deputy carer or other representative. I also note that the British Bankers Association has provided on its website information on banking for those with less capacity.
I nevertheless agree with my hon. Friend that older people, the disabled and their carers should be able to benefit from the convenience of an online service. With online banking, it is even more important that security measures are in place to prevent unauthorised persons from accessing consumers’ accounts. There is no opportunity for a member of the bank staff to verify the identity of a carer or representative acting on behalf of a customer. Customers have a duty to protect the security details they are given in order to minimise the risk of financial crime. This may preclude sharing their log-in details with their carer.
My hon. Friend set out the unique difficulty faced by those who need the assistance of a carer to access their bank account. As with the application of identity checks more generally, there is a balance to be struck between maximising security for customers and facilitating access for customers who need the help of a carer. The services offered by banks and building societies are evolving all the time, and I would urge the industry to ensure that account is taken of this issue in the development of online services.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey once again for bringing this issue to the attention of the House and the Government. I have taken note of his comments about the campaign on this issue. I am sure this is not the last we will hear of this matter either from my hon. Friend or, indeed, from others. I, for one—and the Government as a whole—would be interested to hear from individuals facing some of these difficulties and from banks and building societies about how, in the course of improving their services, they are approaching the issue of permitting access for those who require the assistance of a carer. Treasury officials will pick up in their discussions with current account providers the very points that my hon. Friend has made this evening.
I am sure that our hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who leads on these matters but is unavailable today, would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, Mr and Mrs Dransfield and others as the matter develops to look at proposals to address this concern. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we will continue to monitor this issue in the context of improving access to banking more generally and in the context of the Government’s actions to support carers.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He has set out clearly and very well the concerns of his constituents. I assure him that his words have been heard clearly by the Treasury, and I am sure that they will have been heard clearly by banks and building societies as well.
Question put and agreed to.